Michael Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania and the founder of the modern Intelligent Design movement. His book “Darwin’s Black Box” ignited the controversy 14 years ago when it claimed that certain molecular machines and biological processes are “irreducibly complex” and cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution.

Keith Fox is Professor of biochemistry at the University of Southampton and chairman of Christians in Science. As a theistic evolutionist he believes that Evolution is the best explanation going for the complexity we see and that ID is a blind scientific alley and theologically unappealing to boot.

They debate whether micromachines in the cell such as the “bacterial flagellum” could have evolved by a Darwinian process of evolution. When inference to design is and isn’t acceptable in science. Whether random mutation can mathematically stack up to complex life, and whether God is reduced to a divine “tinkerer” by ID.

Here’s the debate:

Summary

Note: the following debate summary is rated “S” for Snarky. Reader discretion is advised.

Michael Behe:

ID is not Biblical creationism

ID is not religion

ID is a scientific research program

People refuse to discuss ID because of personal philosophical assumptions

ID is like the Big Bang – it is based on evidence, but it has broad religious implications

Keith Fox:

ID is not Biblical creationism, but it isn’t science

Michael Behe:

ID is compatible with common descent

ID is only opposed to unplanned, unguided evolution (Darwinism)

ID is not necessarily opposed to long periods of time

Behe’s first book – the bacterial flagellum

Keith Fox:

Here are a couple of papers that show how parts of the flagellum evolved

They are possible pathways

Michael Behe

No, those are studies that show that there are similarities between bacterial flagella in multiple organisms

Similarities of proteins between different organisms do not necessarily imply a developmental pathway

The problem of having the instructions to BUILD the flagellum still remains

Keith Fox:

Maybe parts of the flagellum had other functions before they were used in the flagellum

Maybe you can use the parts of the flagellum for other purposes

Maybe, one can imagine, it’s possible that!

Michael Behe:

No, parts have to be modified and re-purposed in order to be used for other functions

Keith Fox:

But maybe the proteins can be used in other systems for other things

I re-purpose parts from of designed things to other purposes in my house when I do maintenance

Michael Behe

Uh, yeah – but aren’t you an intelligent designer? What does your home maintenance have to do with Darwinian evolution?

Is ID another God-of-the-gaps argument?

Michael Behe:

Well consider the Big Bang… there was a build-up of scientific evidence for that theory

Just because a theory has religious implications, doesn’t mean that it isn’t true

You really have to look at the specific evidence for a theory, and not decide in advance

Keith Fox: (I’m paraphrasing/inventing/mocking from now on)

But the Big Bang is based on discoveries, and intelligent design is based on gaps in our scientific knowledge

What if I did have evidence of a step by step pathway (which I don’t right now)? Then I would win the argument – what would you do then?

Michael Behe:

Well, if tomorrow you do manage to find expiremental evidence of a pathway, which you don’t have today, then I would be wrong

ID is falsifiable by experimental evidence

But what about your your view? Is that falsifiable by experimental evidence?

Lenski has presided over 50,000 generations, (millions of years of evolution)

The bacterium did evolve and they did get better but not by evolving features, but by disabling features

Keith Fox:

But those are just LAB EXPERIMENTS! What do lab experiments prove?

What if? What if? What if? You don’t know, it happened so long ago, and you weren’t there! You weren’t there!

(clutches Flying Spaghetti Monster idol tighter and sobs pitifully)

Michael Behe:

See, the thing is that I have actual experiements, and here’s some more evidence that just got published last week

So I’ve got evidence and then some more evidence and them some other evidence – experimental evidence

And all the evidence shows that adaptation is done losing traits not by gaining traits

And the published observations are what we see in nature as well

Keith Fox:

But doesn’t Darwinism explain some things that we observe?

Michael Behe:

Well, I am not saying that micro-evolution doesn’t explain some things – it explains bacterial resistance, and other micro-evolution

it just doesn’t explain macro-evolution, and that’s what the experiments show

Keith Fox:

But ID is a science stopper! It stops science! You can’t produce experimental evidence to falsify Darwinism – that would stop science!

Michael Behe:

Well, you have to understand that the Big Bang postulated a non-material cause to the entire physical universe and yet the experimental evidence was allowed to stand because it was testable and verifiable evidence, even if the theory does have religious implications

All explanations in science are design to settle a question and it stops rival explanations that are not as good at explaining the observations

Finding the best explanation stops further study because it is better than rival explanations

Keith Fox:

Well you have to come up with a materialist explanation because that’s the only kind that a functional atheist like me will allow

Michael Behe:

Well, what if the best explanation for an observed effect in nature is non-material, as with the Big Bang?

Keith Fox:

But I have to have a material explanation because I am a functional atheist! (i.e. – a theistic evolutionist = functional atheist)

Michael Behe:

Well what about the cosmic fine-tuning argument? Do you accept that?

That’s an inference to design based on the latest scientific discoveries

Keith Fox:

Well I do accept that argument, but I don’t accept design in biology

When you apply it to biology, somehow it’s bad and you can’t do that or you losing research money and get fired

Anyway, your argument is based on a gap in our current knowledge

Michael Behe:

No, back in Darwin’s time we had a gap in our knowledge – we didn’t know what the cell was – we thought it was jello

Now, we know what the cell is really like, it’s irreducibly complex, and you can’t build up those molecular machines in a step-wise manner

The inference to design is based on the progress of science revealing the increasing levels of complexity

Who knows! I certainly don’t know! And that somehow means you don’t know either! See?

Michael Behe:

Well, to prove me wrong, go into the lab, and run experiments and evolve some new genes (using Darwinian mechanisms) that have new useful functionality

Are there limits to what evolution can do?

Michael Behe:

You need multiple changes in the genome to get a new helpful feature (let’s say two specific mutations)

One specific change is possible

the odds are against getting multiple beneficial changes are really really small – you need two SPECIFIC changes to occur in order

Keith Fox:

Well, lots of things are really unlikely – any permutation of dice rolls is as unlikely as any other

Michael Behe:

Well, we are talking about TWO SPECIFIC mutations that are needed to get a beneficial function – lots of other mutations are possible, but we are looking for a specific outcome that requires two SPECIFIC mutations out of the whole genome

You aren’t going to get useful outcomes unless you direct the mutations

Michael Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania and the founder of the modern Intelligent Design movement. His book “Darwin’s Black Box” ignited the controversy 14 years ago when it claimed that certain molecular machines and biological processes are “irreducibly complex” and cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution.

Keith Fox is Professor of biochemistry at the University of Southampton and chairman of Christians in Science. As a theistic evolutionist he believes that Evolution is the best explanation going for the complexity we see and that ID is a blind scientific alley and theologically unappealing to boot.

They debate whether micromachines in the cell such as the “bacterial flagellum” could have evolved by a Darwinian process of evolution. When inference to design is and isn’t acceptable in science. Whether random mutation can mathematically stack up to complex life, and whether God is reduced to a divine “tinkerer” by ID.

Here’s the debate:

Summary

Note: the following debate summary is rated “S” for Snarky. Reader discretion is advised.

Michael Behe:

ID is not Biblical creationism

ID is not religion

ID is a scientific research program

People refuse to discuss ID because of personal philosophical assumptions

ID is like the Big Bang – it is based on evidence, but it has broad religious implications

Keith Fox:

ID is not Biblical creationism, but it isn’t science

Michael Behe:

ID is compatible with common descent

ID is only opposed to unplanned, unguided evolution (Darwinism)

ID is not necessarily opposed to long periods of time

Behe’s first book – the bacterial flagellum

Keith Fox:

Here are a couple of papers that show how parts of the flagellum evolved

They are possible pathways

Michael Behe

No, those are studies that show that there are similarities between bacterial flagella in multiple organisms

Similarities of proteins between different organisms do not necessarily imply a developmental pathway

The problem of having the instructions to BUILD the flagellum still remains

Keith Fox:

Maybe parts of the flagellum had other functions before they were used in the flagellum

Maybe you can use the parts of the flagellum for other purposes

Maybe, one can imagine, it’s possible that!

Michael Behe:

No, parts have to be modified and re-purposed in order to be used for other functions

Keith Fox:

But maybe the proteins can be used in other systems for other things

I re-purpose parts from of designed things to other purposes in my house when I do maintenance

Michael Behe

Uh, yeah – but aren’t you an intelligent designer? What does your home maintenance have to do with Darwinian evolution?

Is ID another God-of-the-gaps argument?

Michael Behe:

Well consider the Big Bang… there was a build-up of scientific evidence for that theory

Just because a theory has religious implications, doesn’t mean that it isn’t true

You really have to look at the specific evidence for a theory, and not decide in advance

Keith Fox: (I’m paraphrasing/inventing/mocking from now on)

But the Big Bang is based on discoveries, and intelligent design is based on gaps in our scientific knowledge

What if I did have evidence of a step by step pathway (which I don’t right now)? Then I would win the argument – what would you do then?

Michael Behe:

Well, if tomorrow you do manage to find expiremental evidence of a pathway, which you don’t have today, then I would be wrong

ID is falsifiable by experimental evidence

But what about your your view? Is that falsifiable by experimental evidence?

Lenski has presided over 50,000 generations, (millions of years of evolution)

The bacterium did evolve and they did get better but not by evolving features, but by disabling features

Keith Fox:

But those are just LAB EXPERIMENTS! What do lab experiments prove?

What if? What if? What if? You don’t know, it happened so long ago, and you weren’t there! You weren’t there!

(clutches Flying Spaghetti Monster idol tighter and sobs pitifully)

Michael Behe:

See, the thing is that I have actual experiements, and here’s some more evidence that just got published last week

So I’ve got evidence and then some more evidence and them some other evidence – experimental evidence

And all the evidence shows that adaptation is done losing traits not by gaining traits

And the published observations are what we see in nature as well

Keith Fox:

But doesn’t Darwinism explain some things that we observe?

Michael Behe:

Well, I am not saying that micro-evolution doesn’t explain some things – it explains bacterial resistance, and other micro-evolution

it just doesn’t explain macro-evolution, and that’s what the experiments show

Keith Fox:

But ID is a science stopper! It stops science! You can’t produce experimental evidence to falsify Darwinism – that would stop science!

Michael Behe:

Well, you have to understand that the Big Bang postulated a non-material cause to the entire physical universe and yet the experimental evidence was allowed to stand because it was testable and verifiable evidence, even if the theory does have religious implications

All explanations in science are design to settle a question and it stops rival explanations that are not as good at explaining the observations

Finding the best explanation stops further study because it is better than rival explanations

Keith Fox:

Well you have to come up with a materialist explanation because that’s the only kind that a functional atheist like me will allow

Michael Behe:

Well, what if the best explanation for an observed effect in nature is non-material, as with the Big Bang?

Keith Fox:

But I have to have a material explanation because I am a functional atheist! (i.e. – a theistic evolutionist = functional atheist)

Michael Behe:

Well what about the cosmic fine-tuning argument? Do you accept that?

That’s an inference to design based on the latest scientific discoveries

Keith Fox:

Well I do accept that argument, but I don’t accept design in biology

When you apply it to biology, somehow it’s bad and you can’t do that or you losing research money and get fired

Anyway, your argument is based on a gap in our current knowledge

Michael Behe:

No, back in Darwin’s time we had a gap in our knowledge – we didn’t know what the cell was – we thought it was jello

Now, we know what the cell is really like, it’s irreducibly complex, and you can’t build up those molecular machines in a step-wise manner

The inference to design is based on the progress of science revealing the increasing levels of complexity

Who knows! I certainly don’t know! And that somehow means you don’t know either! See?

Michael Behe:

Well, to prove me wrong, go into the lab, and run experiments and evolve some new genes (using Darwinian mechanisms) that have new useful functionality

Are there limits to what evolution can do?

Michael Behe:

You need multiple changes in the genome to get a new helpful feature (let’s say two specific mutations)

One specific change is possible

the odds are against getting multiple beneficial changes are really really small – you need two SPECIFIC changes to occur in order

Keith Fox:

Well, lots of things are really unlikely – any permutation of dice rolls is as unlikely as any other

Michael Behe:

Well, we are talking about TWO SPECIFIC mutations that are needed to get a beneficial function – lots of other mutations are possible, but we are looking for a specific outcome that requires two SPECIFIC mutations out of the whole genome

You aren’t going to get useful outcomes unless you direct the mutations

What should we make of theistic evolutionists telling us that you can believe in God, while still knowing that matter, law and chance fully explain the development of all of biological life?

Consider this quotation from Phillip E. Johnson.

Quote:

The National Academy’s way of dealing with the religious implications of evolution is akin to the two-platoon system in American football. When the leading figures of evolutionary science feel free to say what they really believe, writers such as Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Carl Sagan, Steven Pinker, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin and others state the “God is dead” thesis aggressively, invoking the authority of science to silence any theistic protest. That is the offensive platoon, and the National Academy never raises any objection to its promoting this worldview.

At other times, however, the scientific elite has to protect the teaching of the “fact of evolution” from objections by religious conservatives who know what the offensive platoon is saying and who argue that the science educators are insinuating a worldview that goes far beyond the data. When the objectors are too numerous or influential to be ignored, the defensive platoon takes the field. That is when we read those spin-doctored reassurances saying that many scientists are religious (in some sense), that science does not claim to have proved that God does not exist (but merely that he does not affect the natural world), and that science and religion are separate realms which should never be mixed (unless it is the materialists who are doing the mixing). Once the defensive platoon has done its job it leaves the field, and the offensive platoon goes right back to telling the public that science has shown that “God” is permanently out of business.

(Phillip E. Johnson: “The Wedge of Truth”, IVP 2000, pp. 88-89).

So what naturalistic scientists believe is that God didn’t do anything to create the diversity of life – that nature does all of its own creating without God. In fact, it doesn’t matter if the best naturalistic explanation is improbable or implausible – naturalists must bitterly cling to materialistic explanations of natural phenomena. Any doubts about the efficacy of naturalistic mechanisms get met by “theistic evolutionists” – scientists who think that science shows that God didn’t do anything in the history of life.

When it comes to discussing origins, you have to be very careful with theistic evolutionists. The one question they want to avoid is whether science, done in the ordinary naturalistic way, can discover evidence of intelligent agency in the history of the development of life. And that’s why you have to ask them that question first. “Is there any scientific evidence that intelligent causes were active during the history of the development of life on this planet?” Their answer to that is the same as atheists, namely: “there is no scientific evidence that intelligent causes are responsible for the effects we see in the history of life on Earth”. Theistic evolutionists and atheists agree on that: as far as pure scientific evidence is concerned, nature can do its own creating without any intelligence writing genetic code or engineering animal body plans.

For his part, [Ken] Miller, a biologist, has no qualms about telling us what God would do: “And in Catholicism, he said, God wouldn’t micromanage that way. ‘Surely he can set things up without having to violate his own laws.'”

I am unaware of any tenet of Catholic theology that requires God not to micromanage. It is, however, a tenet of deism.

Got that? What really happened is that God didn’t do anything. How does he know that? From the science? No. Because he assumes naturalism. Oh, it’s true that he says that God is lurking somewhere behind the material processes that created life. But God’s agency is undetectable by the methods of science. And he is hoping that you will accept his subjective pious God-talk as proof that a fundamentally atheistic reality is somehow reconcilable with a robust conception of theism.

More from Richards:

Then we get Stephen Barr offering his private definition of “chance.”

It is possible to believe simultaneously in a world that is shaped by chance and one following a divine plan. “God is in charge and there’s a lot of accident,” said Barr, also a Catholic. “It’s all part of a plan. . . . God may have known where every molecule was going to move.”

What does Barr really believe? He believes that what science shows is that nature created life without any interference by an intelligent agent. Barr then offers believers his subjective pious God-talk to reassure them that evolution is compatible with religion. He has a personal belief – NOT BASED ON SCIENCE – that the material processes that created all of life are “all part of a plan”. He cannot demonstrate that from science – it’s his faith commitment. And more speculations: “God may have known…”. He can’t demonstrate that God did know anything from science. He is just offering a personal opinion about what God “could have” done. The purpose of these subjective opinions is to appease those who ask questions about what natural mechanisms can really create. Can natural causes really account for the development of functional proteins? Never mind that – look at my shiny spiritual-sounding testimony!

That’s theistic evolution. What really happened is that no intelligent causes are needed to explain life. What they say is “God could” and “God might” and “I pray” and “I attend this church” and “I received a Christian award” and “I sing praise hymns in church”. None of these religious opinions and speculations are relevant to the science – they are just opinions, speculations and biographical trivia. Atheists and theistic evolutionists agree on what science shows about the diversity of life – intelligent causes didn’t do anything.

Front-loading?

One of the ways that theistic evolutionists try to affirm design is by insisting that the design is “front-loaded”. The design for all the information and body plans is somehow embedded in matter.

Here is Stephen C. Meyer to assess that:

It’s very important to understand that there is no scientific evidence for design (information) being front-loaded. So although the theistic evolutionists are talking about design, it’s still in the realm of faith – not detectable to scientific investigation. And as Dr. Meyer explained, it doesn’t work to explain design anyway.

I attended a Wheaton College philosophy conference where Dr. Michael Murray read a paper advocating for this front-loaded view of design. I raised my hand to ask him a question, “hey, philosophy guy, did God front-load the information in that paper you’re reading, or did you write it yourself?” But the philosophy moderators must have known that I was an engineer, and would talk sense into him, because they never called on me. However, I did e-mail him later and asked him if he had any evidence for this front-loading theory, and couldn’t God write sequence information in time the same way he had sequenced information in his essay. He replied and said that front-loading was more emotionally satisfying for him. That’s philosophy, I guess. Thank goodness an engineer wrote his e-mail program so that he could at least come clean about his silly view.

The quickest way to disarm a theistic evolutionist is to ask them for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life. And for a naturalistic explanation of the Cambrian explosion. And so on. Focus on the science – don’t let them turn the conversation to their personal beliefs, or to the Bible, or to religion. No one cares about the psychology of the theistic evolutionist. We only care what science can show.

Dr. Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. While there, Dr Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather. His thesis was entitled “Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism.” Among other things, he discovered a previously unknown polar alignment of supergranules (solar convection cells), and discovered evidence of solar giant cells. He has also authored a number of papers in both secular and creation literature.

At age seventeen he became the youngest person ever to serve as director of observations for Vancouver’s Royal Astronomical Society. With the help of a provincial scholarship and a National Research Council (NRC) of Canada fellowship, he completed his undergraduate degree in physics (University of British Columbia) and graduate degrees in astronomy (University of Toronto). The NRC also sent him to the United States for postdoctoral studies. At Caltech he researched quasi-stellar objects, or “quasars,” some of the most distant and ancient objects in the universe.

So both have impeccable scientific credentials.

The MP3 file is here. (This is the updated version that Brian Auten fixed to remove the commercials!)

I don’t always agree with Frank Pastore, (only 95%), but he knows the topic of the debate back to front, and guides the discussion in an incredibly useful, accurate way. This is a fine debate to listen to! You will learn a lot. And you will have fun learning.

The Bible and the early church fathers

Jason Lisle

we take Genesis literally

the starting point of YEC is Scripture

the plain meaning of Scripture is that the earth was made in 6 24-hour days

science has to be interpreted in a way that fits a plain reading of Genesis 1

the evidence for an old universe and old Earth must be rejected a priori

Hugh Ross

we take Genesis literally

the Hebrew word for day (yom) can mean 24 hours or a long period of time

there are multiple creation accounts in the Bible

interpreting yom as long periods of time harmonizes all the accounts

the Bible says that the seventh day is not even ended

we believe in a literal Adam and Eve living thousands of years ago

Jason Lisle

there’s only 1 account of creation in the Bible: Genesis

the normal view in church history is 6 24-hour days

there are some early church fathers who that the days are long

the other places where creation is discussed are not real accounts

Hugh Ross

the early church did not spend a lot of time talking about the age of the Earth

there is not unanimous agreement about the age of the Earth

there is no definitive statement on the age of the Earth until Isaac Newton

Newton strongly favored an old earth, hundreds of years before Darwin

there are other creation accounts, Job 38-39

Pslam 104 is a creation account

Jason Lisle

a Psalm is not written in the genre of historical narrative

Psalm 104 is not a creation account – it talks about ships, etc

it’s talking about the modern era, not a creation account

The evidence from science

Hugh Ross

both of us believe in an absolute beginning of time, space and matter

both of us believe that space is expanding now

stars form as matter coalesces during the expansion of the universe

star formation requires a universe aged on the order of billions of years

Jason Lisle

if you pre-suppose my interpretation of Genesis, then the universe is young

Hugh Ross

the speed of the expansion of the universe proves an old universe

the light emitted from the oldest stars also proves an old universe

Jason Lisle

if you pre-suppose my interpretation of Genesis, then the universe is young

Was the universe made with the appearance of age

Jason Lisle

any evidence for an old universe is wrong

stars didn’t form gradually, they were created by God instantly

stars have the appearance of age, but they’re actually young

Hugh Ross

God doesn’t lie in the Bible or in the book of nature

Scientists can look back in time by looking further out into the universe

Because light takes a long time to travel to the Earth, we can see the past

we can see a time when there were no stars yet

stars formed slowly over time, not instantaneously

we have photos of the universe before stars and after stars

we can see a history of the universe by looking closer and further away

I found this fun lecture by the grandfather of the big-tent intelligent design movement, Berkeley law professor Philip E. Johnson.

I’ll bet you guys have all heard of him, but you’ve never heard him speak, right? Well, I was a young man, I used to listen to Phil’s lectures and his debates with Eugenie Scott quite a bit. This is one of my favorite lectures. Very easy to understand, and boilerplate for anything else in the origins debate. This is a great lecture – funny, engaging and useful. You will definitely listen to this lecture several times if you listen to it once.

the real thing to be explained is the first living cell’s functional information, and the creation of new functional information

Johnson’s case for intelligent design is rooted in science – specifically in the specific arrangements of components in proteins that allows organisms to perform biological functions.

Critical response

The next 15 minutes of the lecture contain a critical response from a philosophy professor who thinks that there have been no developments in design arguments since Aquinas and Paley. He basically confirms the stereotypes that Johnson outlined in the first part of the lecture. I recommend listening to this to see what opposition to intelligent design really looks like. It’s not concerned with answering scientific questions – they want to talk about God, the Bible and Noah’s ark. It’s our job to get people like this critic to focus on the science.

Here’s my snarky rendition of what he said:

1) Don’t take the Bible literally, even if the genre is literal.

all opposition to evolution is based on an ignorant, fundamentalist, literal reading of the Bible

the Bible really doesn’t communicate anything about the way the world really is

the Bible is just meant to suggest certain opinions and experiences which you may find fetching, or not, depending on your feelings and community

if Christians would just interpret the Bible as myths and opinions on par with other personal preferences, then evolution is no threat to religious belief

2) As long as you treat the design argument as divorced from evidence, it’s not very effective

the latest and best version of the design argument is the old Paley argument which involves no experimental data, so I’ll critique that

this 200-year old argument which doesn’t rely on science has serious problems, and unnamed Christians agree with me!

Christians should NOT try to prove God’s existence using evidence from the natural world (as Romans 1 says), and in fact it’s “Pelagianism” to even try

Christians should divorce their faith from logic and evidence even though the Bible presents faith as being rooted in reason and evidence

Christians should not tie their faith to the science of today, because science is always changing and the theism-friendly evidence of today might be overturned tomorrow

It’s a good idea for me to critique the arguments of 1000-year old people who did not know anything about the cosmic fine-tuning argument – that’s fair!

I find it very useful to tell people that the argument from design is false without mentioning any design arguments from DNA or cosmic fine-tuning

We need to assume that the natural world is explainable using only natural causes before we look at any evidence

We should assume that natural causes create all life, and then rule out all experimental evidence for intelligent causes that we have today

As long as you accept that God is a personal opinion that has nothing to do with reality, then you can do science

The non-Christian process theologian Teilhard de Chardin accepts evolution, and therefore so should you

Remember when theists said God caused thunder because he was bowling in the clouds and then we found out he didn’t? Yeah well – maybe tomorrow we’ll find out that functional sequences of amino acids and proteins have natural causes! What would you do then?

3) What the Bible really says is that you should be a political liberal